3. Serving Two Masters Derrick Bell has pointed out a…
““3. Serving Two Masters Derrick Bell has pointed out a third structure that impedes reform, this time in law. To litigate a law-reform case, the lawyer needs a flesh-and-blood client. One might wish to establish the right of poor consumers to rescind a sales contract or to challenge the legal fiction that a school district is desegregated if the authorities have arranged that the makeup of certain schools is half black and half Chicano (as some of them did in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education). Suppose, however, that the client and his or her community do not want the very same remedy that the lawyer does. The lawyer, who may represent a civil rights or public interest organization, may want a sweeping decree that names a new evil and declares it contrary to constitutional principles. He or she may be willing to gamble and risk all. The client, however, may want something different—better schools or more money for the ones in his or her neighborhood.””
About This Quote
This interpretation was drafted with AI assistance. It is one reading of the quote, not the author's own explanation.
Law reform must consider client desires; lawyers may push sweeping changes that conflict with community needs.
In simple terms: Lawyers should align reforms with client wishes.
Key Takeaway
Align legal strategies with client goals.
Themes
law
reform
client
civil rights
public interest
Mood
critical
ethical
Type
Board of education:0
Civil rights:1
Law:1
Public interest:1
Brown V Board Of Education:0
Civil Right:1
Law Reform:1
Reform Case:1
Lawyer Needs:1
Lawyer Represent:1
Serving Masters:0
When to use this quote
- public interest litigation
- civil rights advocacy
- community organizing
Key Concepts
legal ethics
community empowerment
policy making
Questions to Reflect On
- Do reforms truly serve those affected?
- How can lawyers better incorporate community voices?
A Different Perspective
Lawyer’s broader agenda may ignore local priorities.